What Prof. Zhang is talking about, sure. In Zhang's introductory PowerPoint lecture, he has a graphic showing that the junction of "molecular computing" with "artificial intelligence" yields "molecular intelligence". In other words, artificial intelligence that is achieved using molecular computing techniques.

You, though, are not talking about the same thing as Zhang is when you say "molecular intelligence". What you have going there has a name: equivocation.

They are referencing standard learning and memory material that likewise supports the theory, because both are explaining the same thing!

And you should know that in real-science the best possible thing to have to make all that simple is a model that can unify such concepts. It shows that other researchers are not "equivocation" either, intelligence does exist at the molecular level. You just don't want to admit that I am right about that too.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

What Prof. Zhang is talking about, sure. In Zhang's introductory PowerPoint lecture, he has a graphic showing that the junction of "molecular computing" with "artificial intelligence" yields "molecular intelligence". In other words, artificial intelligence that is achieved using molecular computing techniques.

You, though, are not talking about the same thing as Zhang is when you say "molecular intelligence". What you have going there has a name: equivocation.

They are referencing standard learning and memory material that likewise supports the theory, because both are explaining the same thing!

And you should know that in real-science the best possible thing to have to make all that simple is a model that can unify such concepts. It shows that other researchers are not "equivocation" either, intelligence does exist at the molecular level. You just don't want to admit that I am right about that too.

I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.

You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.

Let me get this straight - *I* have to prove that your model is like his? It isn't. You went fishing for support, linked to something you didn't understand and got caught with your pants down, bullshitter Gary.

This discussion requires you or someone else to show where Professor Zhang even attempts to explain the similarities between all known levels of intelligence and behavior of matter. Without that you are just saying they don't agree, without ever producing evidence to know either way. You pretend that their references for their claims disagrees with what the theory states even when there is no conflict at all, in fact that is why I found their site such a resource.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I'm sorry Gary, but you are simply dishonest. There is no commonality between the work of Prof. Zhang and your VB script other than the phrase "molecular intelligence" which you both use to mean very different things.

Prove it by showing their model which explains "molecular intelligence" in context with "behavior of matter", "cellular intelligence" and "multicellular intelligence" with the algorithm/circuit you are suggesting exists at that site.

You will find none, because they do not write theory to unify such scientific concepts. That's what the Theory of Intelligent Design is for.

Let me get this straight - *I* have to prove that your model is like his? It isn't. You went fishing for support, linked to something you didn't understand and got caught with your pants down, bullshitter Gary.

This discussion requires you or someone else to show where Professor Zhang even attempts to explain the similarities between all known levels of intelligence and behavior of matter. Without that you are just saying they don't agree, without ever producing evidence to know either way. You pretend that their references for their claims disagrees with what the theory states even when there is no conflict at all, in fact that is why I found their site such a resource.

When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. "If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed".[1] This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.[2][3]

If *you* think they are related then *you* must prove it. Not by highlighting equivocal phrases, or that "he uses words, I use words" but a deep level of coherence in concepts.

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

Excuse Typo, can't edit, but here is how it should read:

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is incoherent?

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Gary, you're an idiot. If you believe there is a link beyond the use of a highly equivocal phrase in Prof. Zhang's work and yours, make a case. Prof. Zhang my also be invited to this discourse. So far all you've done is make things up and erect strawmen.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

Now we're back to Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

Now we're back to Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Oh noes! Bullshitter Gary's argument is a negative "I don't think evolution can do stuff!" one. And even worse, those key-holding, gate-keeping, loyalty-requiring religious zealots at antievolution.org are stopping him from doing science and stomping on his ideas and not taking him seriously!

I'm not going to respond to unsupported arguments intended to make it appear that Professor Zhang is somehow saying that "molecular intelligence" as I also describe cannot exist. Suggesting that they would use a phrase like that just for show (like real intelligence is not really there in biology) only degrades their work too.

Responding to invented things no one has said is generally unproductive.

Why not respond to the things that actually have been said? It would make a nice change of pace for you.

Then the only thing I need to know is: Do you agree that your argument is not evidence that the theory is coherent?

There's plenty of other things that you need to know, but I can heartily assent to the notion that nothing I've said supports the idea that your work is coherent.

Only thing you did is help bully my statement about molecular intelligence being a scientific concept, which it is.

You have no evidence against the theory. If you did then you have presented some by now.

If your conjecture is unfalsifiable, the consequence would be that no contrary evidence exists. Asking people to refute something with no possible contrary evidence would be a pretty brazen example of chutzpah.

Now we're back to Popper philosophy and your religion based conclusions to try getting out of having to address the model which references to:

Oh noes! Bullshitter Gary's argument is a negative "I don't think evolution can do stuff!" one. And even worse, those key-holding, gate-keeping, loyalty-requiring religious zealots at antievolution.org are stopping him from doing science and stomping on his ideas and not taking him seriously!

That is a good example of the turf-war in US science and education where sciences pertaining to intelligence are spit-on, so that it can be made to appear that Darwinian theory already explained how intelligence works too. It's no wonder the academic neglect led to "intelligence" becoming such a controversy.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain how intelligence works using a high school level model that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)! Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Oh noes! Bullshitter Gary's argument is a negative "I don't think evolution can do stuff!" one. And even worse, those key-holding, gate-keeping, loyalty-requiring religious zealots at antievolution.org are stopping him from doing science and stomping on his ideas and not taking him seriously!

That is a good example of the turf-war in US science and education where sciences pertaining to intelligence are spit-on, so that it can be made to appear that Darwinian theory already explained how intelligence works too. It's no wonder the academic neglect led to "intelligence" becoming such a controversy.

GaryTroll: Again, where do you think you are, dipshit?

We poke fun at creationists. Strange you are attracted here. This isn't the place for doing science, not that you ever could.

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain how intelligence works using a high school level model that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)! Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

Oh, we've seen how you link to experts Gary: "Look, he used the same phrase as me!"

You have no better model to show, nothing at all to help pioneer developing fields. Instead stomp on them so they are not taken seriously like they should have been right along.

Gary, can you not see how disclaiming falsifiability and also calling for critics to attempt to falsify your work is inconsistent, if not contradictory?

Then YOU explain how intelligence works using a high school level model that applies to all known intelligence levels (molecular, cellular, multicellular)! Show circuit and algorithm, along with evidence that your model came from established cognitive science experts.

Gary, whether or not you think that falsification is properly viewed as a demarcation criterion for science, Popper nailed the point that we can't determine that a scientific theory is true in an absolute sense. It is quite common for a theory to incorporate a number of verifiable basic statements, yet still be false in its predictions.

So far you've insisted that people critiquing your work prove it false, though you explicitly disclaim the applicability of falsifiability to it, and then insisted that they prove it true, with apparently no misgivings whatsoever that this confirms the critique about lack of substantiation from you.

For someone concerned about scientific credibility, this is not a good thing.

In my research, I don't have the same goals as you do. I have to reject the notion that I have developed no models and contributed nothing to scientific progress. You may not like my work, and you may reject my work as being applicable to your personal project, but that does not make it go away.